What Universities do to Stay "Beautiful"

6.3%...7.2%....9.7%....it's acceptance rates like these that, perhaps embarrassingly, make prospective students and interested researchers alike gasp and blush. Universities know that these prestigious, exclusive numbers are marveled over time and time again, making the necessity to uphold them quite strong. Reading these microscopic values previously led me to the conclusion "Well, schools like Harvard and Stanford...they're just selective. They know who they want and they pick wisely!" A couple students cherry-picked to attend and a herd of hopeful students denied. 

However, as I got my first college decision, I opened it to read what essentially led to "wait-listed". I had heard about some of my other friends receiving the same sort of decision and feeling happy about it, as in, they were happy it wasn't a rejection and maybe there was hope. I, on the other hand, wasn't as thrilled. I couldn't feel happy nor could I feel sad. It was a massive question mark. Upon hearing more about students getting "wait-listed" than rejected or accepted, I decided it was time to find out why the wait-list has become so attractive. Is it a real sign of hope or something else?

Well, as I had expected, the infamous wait list isn't as hopeful as it seems. An article from the Wall Street Journal described it as schools wanting to "pad their wait list". Sure, a prospective student may be put on there because they definitely piqued an admissions officer's interest in some way or because they were truly very close to getting a spot, however when a school is wait-listing hundreds, even thousands of applicants, you start to wonder what their intentions are. For example, one can look at Johns Hopkins waiting list of approximately 2700 kids and true freshman class size of about 1200 kids question if they're really that indecisive or if they are just trying to stay beautiful. And for them, beautiful means exclusive.

Personally, I would rather receive a definite yes or a no from colleges. However, I understand that sometimes space clears up and a wait list is helpful to have. That being said though, it's frustrating to think that a handful of the most prestigious universities are simply trying to "beat the system" in order to keep their acceptance rates low. Would colleges lose their prestige if their acceptance rates began to creep up? As much as I want to think they wouldn't, I honestly would probably assert that our system does value the rates....perhaps a bit too much. 

Life Illustrated

Art is one of the most popular ways to express the appearance of and feelings associated with a certain idea, setting or object. However, art's appearance throughout time also indicates aspects of the culture surrounding it. The intricacy, the strokes, the themes seen in art offer viewers an understanding of what individuals during certain time periods valued.

Compare Renaissance Art, which was very detailed, scenic, and intricate, with the more recent Modern Art, which is more thought-provoking, raw and risky. While these characteristics are seen in the actual painting itself, this appearance also reveals something about what society was life during the Renaissance Era or during the early 20th century. For example, the shift to more thought-provoking and risky art during the early 20th century expresses the struggle of artists during this time to revive the popularity of art. By inserting more subliminal messages and controversial ideas, artists were clearly trying to have viewers foster more of a connection with art and gain more meaning from the paintings.

With the "look" of art always shifting alongside societal changes, I decided to explore an art trend that has become a huge trend in our modern culture - pop art. Though it isn't a particularly new concept, pop art has been showing up more and more in exhibits and as inspiration for prominent design companies, such as Vogue. When comparing classic pop art to a painting like "School of Athens" by Raphael Sanzio, it's pretty obvious that there has been a shift in what artists are looking to convey.

While analyzing these examples of modern pop art on the left, some conclusions can be drawn. Pop art is often colorful, loud and formatted like a mirage of many prints, patterns and textures. Many examples of pop art, like the example on the top left, also include references to the media or pop culture. Popular lingo, well-known brands, celebrities... more than any other type of art, pop art truly plays with pop culture and societal norms.

So what does the popularization of pop art illustrate about our culture? Personally, I would say that it shows our interest and inextricable connection to current pop culture. Not only is that seen in how artists are inspired to create pop art but also the amount of interest in viewing this type of art and recreating it. Our culture is so influenced by the media that is reflecting in our artists' illustration of our life and interests. Though pop art is certainly unique compared to many of the other artistic trends that have developed throughout time, however it shows an interesting sense of change. It shows our ousting of the old and interest in starting with something fresh...something new. Even more than that, it shows that we are conscious of the influence of media and pop culture, and that we can use art to express and critique it.

The Pageant Craze

Beauty pageants have been a popular pastime for decades, however in this day and age, pageants have grown to be so much more than what they used to be. Nearly everyone I know has watched the TLC show Toddlers & Tiaras or heard about the newly popular toddler beauty pageants. Essentially, the new trend is not to enroll toddlers in summer camps or sign them up for ballet or baseball, but to sign them up for beauty contests.

With hundreds of competitions around the country, children can be enrolled into pageants practically at birth, as the youngest division is 0-11 months old. While there are natural pageants (usually forbid makeup, hair extensions, etc), glitz pageants, which include choreographed routines and look favorably upon big hair, fake teeth, sparkly gowns and nail extensions, are the most popular. Children can compete for a variety of prizes, ranging from money to massive trophies or electronics. Toddlers & Tiaras, which is one of the more commonly recognized shows about toddler beauty pageants, exposes the realities of what the children and families committed to these pageants actually go through.

As innocent and adorable as Toddlers & Tiaras may sound, the controversies connected to these pageants have gained nearly as much attention as the show itself. From giving a child an energy drink mix before going onstage to forcing a child to get her eyebrows waxed to gain points, it seems that some individuals don't have limits when it comes to beauty. When is it too much? Why are there so many parents who seem perfectly content with altering their own child until they seem "flawless"...just for a trophy or some cash?

One of the most disturbing stories I've heard regarding toddler beauty pageants involved a mother who gave botox injections and leg waxing on her 8-year-old daughter. As the article asked, how young is too young? If an individual wants to do these things to themselves when they are old enough to make their own decisions, then so be it. However, it's frightening to think that a mother would allow her daughter, whether she wanted it or not, to get these things done just so that she would be better prepared for a pageant. Clearly this is a recurring thing, which leads me to believe that the beauty pageant system is flawed. Beauty pageants have the potential of being fun and appropriate, however if to win, a child is advised to have fake extensions, fake teeth, a spray tan, an expensive costume, and a lot of makeup...what is that saying about what our society values?

Appearance is important to people; that will likely be true for a long time. However a line must be drawn somewhere. When someone is old enough to make their own decisions and decides that they would like to participate in a beauty pageant, then they can pursue that. Forcing children to do these pageants while altering their natural beauty in the process is a different story. With beauty and makeup already playing such a strong role in our culture today, is it necessary to start exposing children to this specific lifestyle so early? If a child wants to enroll in a beauty pageant, is it necessary to play to win instead of playing for the experience or for fun?

At some point, when a parent has been applying makeup onto their child for 20 minutes straight or starts spray tanning, injecting or waxing their kid, the child begins to lose the appreciation for their natural beauty and for who they are themselves. If a child grows up thinking that they must be beautified to be rewarded, that sentiment is likely there to stay.

Craving a Diagnosis: Problematic?

Disease is oftentimes considered purely scientific. If an individual feels sick, they can go to their doctor, take some tests and leave with a medically-based diagnosis. Take strep throat- not only can you visibly recognize the appearance of this disease, but you can get a definitive diagnosis by taking a throat culture. If you have it, there's no denying it and you can get medication, feeling secure about your specific prescription. However, not all diseases are so clear. Consider those diseases or disorders that are diagnosed merely by appearance or by vague symptoms, such as ADHD.

ADHD, a neurobehavioral disorder, is diagnosed through a psychiatric assessment. Essentially, information about you is collected, some other diseases must be ruled out, and then you get a diagnosis. There is no blood test or study that can be done to verify your diagnosis, meaning error and over-diagnosis is possible. The possibility of error sounds even more like a reality when you look at the symptoms/criteria associated with ADHD. Some include: difficulty focusing, daydreaming, talking nonstop, impatience. To be quite honest, I've experienced all of these symptoms at some point in my life. However, I wouldn't say that I have ADHD. Neither would many others, apparently, as ADHD is currently considered one of the most over-diagnosed diseases.

Along with depression, bipolar disorder and stress, ADHD has been creating controversy. What could be the main theme here? I would argue that these are all appearance-based diseases or disorders. Because of the lack of lab tests, blood samples, or any type of distinct evidence, they are being diagnosed by appearance (symptoms, trends, etc). Doctors, teachers and parents will look at an individual, study their general being, and come to a conclusion. Sometimes it is accurate- don't get me wrong- and treatment can benefit patients, however it's hard to ignore the fact that ADHD diagnosis among children has increased by 22% in 4 years. Is it possible that this disease, having not even "existed" until the 1990s, has so rapidly spread? Additionally, how can we explain the fact that ADHD has been diagnosed more in certain regions of the United States than others (see chart above)?

Bringing in approximately $3 billion every year to pharmaceutical companies for ADHD medication, I begin to wonder whether or not we are just craving diagnosis. Maybe our culture has begun to over-embrace the idea of diagnosing a disease and treating it with medication. What if these children are just hyper and distracted? What if it's just a phase? What if those characteristics are symptoms for a different, more severe disease? With appearance-driven disorders like ADHD, one cannot be sure. Taking this uncertainty into consideration and recognizing that there are some children taking 119 pills every week for their disorders, it seems necessary to question whether or not it's okay for doctors to so heavily rely on medication for "appearance-based" disorders. Though medication can sometimes help ADHD patients, it also isn't necessary in some cases. In others, the child may even be misdiagnosed.

With all of this in mind, I would say that our society needs to step away from medicine and try to fight off the craving for a diagnosis. We should more thoroughly examine these disorders and diseases and not let the ease of prescribing medication overshadow the complexity of these "appearance-based" disorders. Perhaps more emphasis must be put on lifestyle changes, such as, in the case of ADHD, finding ways to limit distractions or teaching those with the disorder how to naturally subdue their symptoms. Medicine will always be an option, but certainly shouldn't be the convenient way out. Appearance isn't everything and sometimes what may seem like a certain disorder will end up being something completely different. Let's eliminate our urge to label and medicate and take a more thorough look at how we are handling diseases and disorders.

Life Exposed

It goes without saying that technology has increasingly influenced our world and lifestyle. In many ways, technology has made life easier on us. Computers, tablets, smart-phones...they connect people around the world, making it easier to communicate, learn about new cultures and hear about current affairs. Only now is it possible to meet someone over the weekend and be able to maintain a relationship with them long after you've parted ways or hear about a natural disaster that happened thousands of miles away within minutes of it happening.

Aside from the conveniences of exposure from new technology, there are considerable inconveniences that have arisen from this "technological revolution". Technology has put us and the world around us on display. The actions we perform are visible. Our appearance is stamped somewhere on the Internet. This makes concerns such as identity theft, online predation, copyright violations and invasion of privacy all the more real.

I am personally an avid user of technology and find it to be quite beneficial to my daily routine. However, has technology left us too exposed? Has our appearance become completely publicized? Unfortunately, it seems as though the Internet privacy scandals have racked up in the past several years. Take the Google Maps Street View scandal or the Instagram privacy scandal as examples. I hear almost constantly on the news stories about an individual finding their photo on a strange website or their personal data being sold to a third party. Some get caught, as Facebook did in 2011 over the Federal Trade Commission's complaint over Facebook's false promises and privacy breaches. However, the FTC cannot catch every scandal, so internet users are falling victim to these sorts of issues daily.

However, to play devil's advocate, there have been some instances in which the exposure of ideas, appearances and events have been helpful. Take the 2011-2012 Egyptian Revolution as an example. This event exemplifies how social media can help the rapid spread of ideas and increase global awareness. The Egyptian citizens took to Facebook, Twitter and other social media outlets to express their anger, which arguably fueled and aided the effort. Otherwise, the convenience of having streaming global news and the ability to hear from individuals all over the world about what is happening to them is powerful.

I'm not afraid to admit that I'm split on the issue of whether or not this technological revolution has been positive or negative. There are clearly two sides to this issues, which is why I'm going to open this up to you all. Has the technological revolution made us too exposed? Are our appearances no longer personal?

A Search for Diversity: University Edition

Having almost finished my plethora of college applications, it is around this time when I start to reflect on the application process. My mind is filled with the statistics from an array of college pamphlets and I can probably recite the common essay questions I've had to answer over these past several, hectic months.

What stands out? Interestingly, the topic of diversity was very much prevalent in the majority of my applications. Nearly all of the college pamphlets I read contained a detailed breakdown of the school's students by ethnicity. Many of the information sessions I attended contained a segment where the admissions officer boasted about how many different backgrounds were present in the school. And at least three of the essays I had to write answered a prompt like " X College prides itself on diversity. Please talk about your background and how that will add to our campus".

Personally, I believe that diversity is important in a college setting. Varied perspectives and unique upbringings provide a more interesting and compelling experience for students since they get to learn about people who are very different from them. However, I began to wonder: has the search for diversity ever gone too far? Have colleges ever been so committed to fostering diversity that they forget about the other aspects of an application? 

Of course. Take two "current" examples: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and now Fisher v. University of Texas (currently being heard by Supreme Court). Similar in nature, these court cases center around the idea of affirmative action. Many of the current criticisms regarding this policy stem from students feeling that they were denied because there were more ethnically diverse applicants (same or less qualifications) as competition. Looking at Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan even admitted that they were quite interested in including as many minorities into the Law School to "provide an opportunity for them"- an idea which the District Court even found unlawful. Though the Supreme Court ultimately upheld affirmative action in that case, here we are, a mere 9 years later, taking a similar case (Fisher v. U. of Texas) to Supreme Court to review the same policy.

Should it stay or should it go? There's definite controversy regarding affirmative action, as seen by this article from Yale News. Some schools deem it necessary...besides, doesn't there need to be some sort of regulation to help bring majority and minority groups together? There are certainly positives to having a multitude of perspectives and stories to share. However, some schools find that minority groups are overrepresented and that there is real discrimination going on in the admissions process. Are policies upholding affirmative action, then, encouraging colleges to choose students based mainly on color of their skin and how "different" they look? Are they just trying to make the school look diverse and not paying enough attention to the actual credentials of the students?

Regardless of the ruling by the Supreme Court for Fisher v. University of Texas, universities need to define diversity- what does that actually mean for our school? With that, the color of an individual's skin should never be the sole factor that gets them into college. Unique experiences, difficult circumstances, passion, grades, extracurriculars...those are the elements that set a student apart. But, like Grutter v. Bollinger, taking a minority into a university just because they are a minority and not because of their great scores, compelling story or extraordinary school involvement, isn't fair to that student or the student who is therefore denied because they do not have the racial "edge". A certain appearance does not equate to a deserving, diverse perspective. There are deserving members in both the majority and minority groups as well as undeserving members. That's why decision-makers should stick to the application and stay away from a compelling appearance or label. 

Mind-Altering Lab Coat

Have you ever put something on, say, a new suit or a sparkly gown, and feel different than you did a couple hours ago when you were sitting on the couch in your pajamas? Or have you ever wondered why doctors wear white lab coats or sales associates at high end retail shops wear suits? 

I hadn't given much thought to it though, thinking that it was just a coincidence that I would sometimes act classier and more proper when I was dressed up in fancy clothing. However, it seems that clothing doesn't just affect how others perceive you- it has been found that clothing also affect how you act.

A study published by the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology called "Enclothed Cognition" (a spin-off to the term embodied cognition) tested the claim that clothing effects the wearer's psychological processes. Their test revolved around the, you guessed it, infamous white lab coat. The white lab coat has always represented care, diligence, and cleanliness. However, does it actually affect performance? Or is it just worn to make others believe that the individual is careful, clean, etc? 

Source

The study concluded that, yes, wearing a white lab coat will increase your focus and attentiveness. The study first tested whether individuals were more focused when wearing a lab coat versus when they weren't, which showed that the act of physically wearing a coat altered your psychological processes. Additionally, the study tested levels of attentiveness when individuals wore a lab coat described as a doctor's coat versus when they wore a coat described as a painter's coat. This study revealed that the symbolism of the garment also mattered, as the individuals wearing the doctor's coat were more focused than those who wore the painter's coat. 

I find it fascinating that wearing a certain article of clothing, feeling it on your body and placing meaning onto it, can affect the way you think and act. Having previously thought more about how appearance affects the way other individuals think of you, it is riveting to see how appearance may affect the wearer. Though I'm sure more studies must be conducted on this subject, I'm wondering what your thoughts are. Can the way you dress affect your personality? Can it make you smarter, more attentive and well-behaved?